zlacker

>>hugoda+(OP)
I am really confused as to what happened here. The use of ‘disabled organization’ to refer to the author made it extra confusing.

I think I kind of have an idea what the author was doing, but not really.

>>cortes+w7
The author was using instance A of Claude to update a `claude.md` while another instance B of Claude was consuming that file. When Claude B did something wrong, the author asked Claude A to update the `claude.md` so that Claude B didn’t make the same mistake again

>>superb+eb
Which shouldn't be bannable imo. Rate throttle is a more reasonable response. But Anthropic didn't reply to the author, so we don't even know if it's the real reason they got banned.

>>rainco+ne
>if it's the real reason they got banned.

I mean, what a country should do it put a law in effect. If you ban a user, the user can submit a request with their government issued ID and you must give an exact reason why they were banned. The company can keep this record in encrypted form for 10 years.

Failure to give the exact reason will lead to a $100,000 fine for the first offense and increase from there up to suspension of operations privileges in said country.

"But, but, but hackers/spammers will abuse this". For one, boo fucking hoo. For two, just add to the bill "Fraudulent use of law to bypass system restrictions is a criminal offense".

This puts companies in a position where they must be able to justify their actual actions, and it also puts scammers at risk if they abuse the system.